The Dictatorship Of The Past

A mythical conception of the past haunts us everywhere from almost every ideological angle. What long-dead people said or did is repeated again and again by those looking for change. It is usually referred to as ‘traditionalism’ and amongst other things it is the driving force of political conservatism.

Comments

Entito Sovrano is a true anarchist. I appreciate your "digging him up", Serenity!

Too many individuals sentimentally cling to the past. It's hard to give that up. It's not easy to clear the hurdle to anarchy -- even for those who truly want anarchy. I suspect many who talk a good libertarian game secretly fear anarchy.

Predators, having ascended to "power", understand this quite well. The Jeffersons and the Hamiltons are only the progenitors to the Obamas and the Bushies. All government is brought about by sociopaths and follows the road to tyranny.

All government is exactly like virulent cancer. It matters not at what stage the scourge appears, or how innocuous the first thefts from A to give to B seem. The malignancy of "government" or "the state" will always eventually consume "Our-Great-Nation" or "My-Country-'Tis-Of-Thee". That segment of the populace who have not been mentally prepared to understand what was going on and who have made no preparation for the final consumption will find themselves standing out in streets, wringing hands, hungry, looking for another Bush or Dr Paul or Hamilton or Washington to lead them out of perdition.

Sovrano:

"...it is said that in previous times, life was generally better for those that appreciate their own liberty and autonomy. Thus, the conservative believes that if we can ‘return’ to the values and institutional structures of that time, we will be able to achieve what they believe to be an ideal state of being..."

I'm old. It's easy for me to fondly look back to my youth (before predators of state had even envisioned farm "subsidies" [thievery from A to "give" to B]) -- prior to one of the sociopaths' wars (WWII) -- and to remember when much of the farming was done with horses and single or two row plows and drop-planters and cross-cultivation of row crops (gasoline was extremely scarce until after 1945). The most one efficient farmer could manage was around 100 to 160 acres. Many fed large families on farm revenue from 40 acres. They were the "rich" -- "the 1%" -- during the major ("great") state-bestowed "depressions".

Today I am the 1%. Not due to assets, investment or "money" in any banks. But because I see clearly and unmistakeably the anarchist principle: "If it's going to be, it's up to me!"

I agree with you. Entito is a true anarchist and a brilliant writer. His take on things from an anarchist position are brilliant. Rank right up there with Lysander Spooner in my humble opinion. I admire those who can articulate what I think but cannot put into words.

i agree with you that predators seek power but that is the nature of those who seek to prey on their fellow human being. power attracts the worst element of society not the best of it.

The only thing i might differ with you on is the nature of the beast being better at one time of history. It never has been a good thing. History proves out its nature to be blood thirsty savages. Ironic that the reason for enslaving the indians was they were so called ''savages'' yet the state was the one who turned savage and still is. It has been brutal from its beginning. Washington used it to subdue farmer Shay and his whiskey rebellion. This monster has never been good. Only good at brain washing those who worship it and give it legitimacy. That is my opinion for what its worth.

"...The only thing i might differ with you on is the nature of the beast being better at one time of history. It never has been a good thing. History proves out its nature to be blood thirsty savages..."

I think the reason for possible difference lies in my choice of words rather than any actual disparity between you and me. You and I both agree on the basic premise: all political action is always based upon monopoly of violence; all monopoly violence (where the aggressee is prohibited by law and/or "popular constraints" from defending himself) is brutal savagery.

In analogizing "the state" with malignant carcinoma I suspect both you and I see it as an accurate parallel -- except that in the early stages cancer might be treatable. "State" offers no treatment due to the acceptance of most within its area of influence.

Look, for instance, at the political holiday coming up in a day or two. Everybody will celebrate (except me, and possibly thee).

What?

"Independence!"

Independence from what?

"That terrible king of England!" (Old King George would roll over in his grave if he could get a glimpse of the egregious police state and the evil obamarama "his" colonies have morphed into since he admitted "defeat" and brought his red-coated war-slaves back home).

South of the fictitious line in the sand it's "Cinco de Mayo" -- "independence" from "France", etc etc etc -- everybody has an "independence day", thanks to Big-Brother. It's an ingenious tactic by predators to whip the docile little sheep into fervent celebration of war and legitimization of state.

Back to Entito Sovrano -- he ends his essay:

"...Ideas are then lumped into a strict dichotomy of ‘American/un-American’ ideas whereby the ‘un-American’ are derided for simply ‘being’ un-American, without any further inquiry. Apart from the fact that this approach dooms one to poor historiography, this is also how nationalism metastasises into fascism...

"The quicker that that history is laid to rest as history and nothing more, the faster those freedom-seekers will realise that there are new and better ways forward..."

So the state is a diabolical malignancy no matter in what stage the victim discovers it. Last time I voted was 1964, after my hero Barry Goldwater was soundly trounced in the bread-and-circus promotion ("election") of the time. Later Harry Browne and a few others gently led me toward libertarian principles (some were more gentle than others, I should add).

Then along came the internet and STR and other anarchy forums, where I could actively exchange ideas with Mark Davis and Jim Davies and many other top promoters of liberty. Statism was forever behind me.

Many right now are dipping their toes into the icy h2o of anarchy -- some due to having been unemployed and desperate and finally awakening to the underlying cause of the malady -- monopoly violence. Others -- many others -- will come into our midst once the real crunch begins to unfold.

It never ceases to amaze me the plethora of deep cognitive knowledge that flows from you in every piece that appears on this sight. I only wish I could have meet you years sooner so I could have gotten my head out of my ass. I am also amazed that you have not written an article for the Root. If you have I can't find it. I have been going to many sites and reading the material, but I find that my withering mind just can't seem to keep up wth the information and blend it into a concise line of thought. You have been my mentor because of the kindness you have shown me through communication. I cannot imagine where I could be at this point if others would try to take me under their wing and guide me along the Danteian path to wade through all the circle.

If I may, my friend, a slight correction. Those who call themselves "the state", or "the law", do not have a "monopoly on violence", but they most certainly do have a "near-monopoly on coercion".

"Violence is the use of physical force intended to harm." Whereas, "Coercion refers to the act of persuading or convincing someone to do something using force or other unethical means." (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. [Emphasis added])

These plunderers must use coercion to enforce compliance to their peculiar positive law.

Here's a quote from Natural Law by Frank Van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law

In the course of history, states have monopolized rule-enforcement within their territories. Not surprisingly, they have given more attention to enforcing their own regulations than to enforcing the rules of justice. After all, the purpose of a state is not the enforcement of the rules of justice but making people comply with its own demands and regulations. Moreover, if states were really intent on eradicating injustice then they would achieve by far the greatest part of their purpose by eradicating themselves -- for whatever it is states generally do, respecting persons[1] or their property is no part of it.

This is a MUST READ for men and women who are not affiliated with the governments of men, or those wishing to be free of the political corporations created by man.
_______________________________________________________________

[1] Unfortunately, Frank, those who call themselves "the state" DO respect [the] persons of men, it is men and women that they do not respect.

Nice to see you razzle-dazzle with me, Suverans2. I just got home from a truck run and am overly tired and probably not up to going where I can see this going. Not tonight anyhow.

I will interject that this interfaces with my premise that the human family is the only authentic and reliable governing unit. I maintain that the human being is totally separate and not related in any sense of that word to the animal kingdom for a number of reasons. The primary one bearing on the fact that the human newborn is unique among living beings in that it (s/he) is wholly dependent upon adult caregivers for several years after birth, and almost always does better with a loving Mom and Dad in the home.

I rather support what many will label "tribal rule" if by that they mean the home is the primary and only valid governing unit, but that argument can also go off in many directions.

Another reason is the human being "rules" ("administers" would be a better term due to the natural libertarian negativity toward rulership) his/her children with love and concern. That can be looked at as coming out of necessity for those who insist that the theory of evolution is indeed fact and not simply a ploy of a gigantic government (thievery) funded scientific cartel who aim to legitimize the conquering "kahns" as legally authentic heads of government.

Not that there have not been "tyrannical" parents -- certainly there have. Probably more so the father than the mother for the simple reason we men did not have the initial bonding of the 9 months Mom had, feeling each movement from the beginning of the live fetus.

But to engage in the argument of how "persuasion" differs from "coercion" is too deep for my tired brain for now. I ramble as it is.

Not that there have not been "tyrannical" parents -- certainly there have. Probably more so the father than the mother for the simple reason we men did not have the initial bonding of the 9 months Mom had, feeling each movement from the beginning of the live fetus.

I meant to add that in most cases the females in the animal kingdom are also probably less observably tyrannical than the males, perhaps for the same reason. Sam

Get some rest, old friend. And, before "engaging" be sure to read this very carefully, "Coercion refers to the act of persuading or convincing someone to do something using force or other unethical means." (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. [Emphasis added])" It's not simply "persuasion", but rather unjust persuasion, persuasion "using force or other unethical means".

Sam;
your most welcome. I believe you are correct as well. The misunderstanding is on my part not yours. Hence the reason i am a better editor then a writer.lol. you hit it perfectly with the up coming ritual to entertain the masses called ''indepedence'' day.

Entito Savrano uses the term [paleoconservitism] what does he mean by this. I do not believe that during the paleoitiic period politics as we know it exists. My best guess is he is refering to the elder ideas of conservativism. Can someone help me with this. I know it is a dumb question to some of you but to me it is not a dumb question.
Thanks whoever decides to help me out.

"Paleo" as a suffix generally means "old" (in this case I suspect "original").

I think Savrano is referring to what we think of as "traditional" conservatism (non intervention by agents of this state into the affairs of others, etc), as opposed to "neo" conservatism ("neocon") -- the idea "we" should engage in wars around the world to "...make the world safe for democracy..." (and establish the "potus" as a true emperor -- never mentioned but always envisioned).

In the above response I embedded a column by Jeff Berwick writing about the dangerous word "we". In checking the comment for errors I see the video that had appeared at the end of Jeff's article has been scuttled, and (for me anyway) that was the most colorful part of the piece.

So, I googled Doug Stanhope and found the video (not for those whose sensitivities are negatively effected by what we've come to call "bad" language):